STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs MANJULA — 328/2025

Case under Tn Open Places(prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 Section 4(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNTV150013502025

e-Filing Number

15-10-2025

Filing Number

1250/2025

Filing Date

05-Nov-2025

Registration No

328/2025

Registration Date

14-Nov-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

317

Police Station

KODAVASAL P.S

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Tn Open Places(prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 Section 4(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

    Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAVASAL PS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANJULA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: STC 328/2025 Court Decision: The accused Manjula was acquitted and discharged under Section 271(1) BNSS from charges under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Erection of Flags and Banners on Roads Act (TNOPPD Act). Key Reasoning: The court found that while the prosecution presented two police witnesses (both police officials) who testified that a DMK party flag was erected without authorization in a public place on 30.03.2021, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no independent civilian witnesses were produced, no physical evidence (photograph or site map) was submitted, and the flag itself was not presented in court. Relying solely on official witnesses who had direct stakes in the case created reasonable doubt about the accused's culpability. The court applied the principle that when doubt exists, it must benefit the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  10. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  11. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  13. 02-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  14. 19-Jan-2026

    Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  15. 06-Jan-2026

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  16. 18-Dec-2025

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  17. 11-Dec-2025

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  18. 06-Dec-2025

    Service Pending

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  19. 04-Dec-2025

    Issue of Process

    District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

  20. 17-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 05-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 328/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: STC 328/2025 Court Decision: The accused Manjula was acquitted and discharged under Section 271(1) BNSS from charges under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Erection of Flags and Banners on Roads Act (TNOPPD Act). Key Reasoning: The court found that while the prosecution presented two police witnesses (both police officials) who testified that a DMK party flag was erected without authorization in a public place on 30.03.2021, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no independent civilian witnesses were produced, no physical evidence (photograph or site map) was submitted, and the flag itself was not presented in court. Relying solely on official witnesses who had direct stakes in the case created reasonable doubt about the accused's culpability. The court applied the principle that when doubt exists, it must benefit the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case